Technology: software and mobile applications
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner has not satisfied the initial evidence requirement of three criteria, and it did not reach a final merits determination.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A software-technology professional appealed SCOPS' denial of his EB-1A petition, which had found none of the five claimed criteria satisfied. Pressing three on appeal, he relied on mobile applications and on his role as a business analyst for a public health team. The AAO found the support letters too general on original contributions of major significance, and too limited on whether he held a leading or critical role. Concluding that he could not meet three criteria, it dismissed the appeal without a final merits analysis.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (iii) Published material about the person | Not reached | arguments fail on two criteria, as discussed above, that means he cannot numerically meet the required |
| (iv) Judging the work of others | Not reached | appeal, the Petitioner continues to assert that he meets the evidentiary criteria relating to (iii), published |
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not met | The record lacks evidence that the Petitioner's original contributions have major significance in |
| (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles | Not reached | appeal, the Petitioner continues to assert that he meets the evidentiary criteria relating to (iii), published |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not met | For these reasons, the Petitioner has not shown he fulfills this criterion. |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The petitioner initially claimed five criteria, and on appeal continued to assert only published material, original contributions and leading or critical role; SCOPS had found none satisfied.
- On original contributions, the letters did not give specific, detailed information explaining the influence of his work on the field, and he has not established major significance beyond limited deployments of his applications.
- On leading or critical role, the letters describe him as a vital or sole team member but do not establish how his position distinguishes him within the larger organization or that he performed in a leading or critical capacity; the distinguished-reputation question was reserved.
- Because the AAO concluded his arguments fail on two criteria, he cannot numerically meet three, and it did not analyze the final merits.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013)
- Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
- Jafarov v. USCIS, No. 23 Civ. 3372 (PAE), 2024 WL 69056 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2024)
- Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
- Matter of G-C-I-, 29 I&N Dec. 176 (BIA 2025)
- Nagaiah v. Allen, 2025 WL 1508028 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2025)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary